Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by E & E on July 8, 2009 at 11:33

No injuries reported, no evacuations ordered at site east of Converse

By Vickie Welborn • vwelborn@gannett.com • July 8, 2009

NEAR CONVERSE – No injuries were reported and no evacuations were required Tuesday evening in connection with a natural gas well blowout in north Sabine Parish.
Advertisement

The “well control incident” at a Chesapeake Energy well site occurred around 5:30 p.m. about a half-mile off of state Highway 174 approximately six miles east of Converse, said J. Kevin McCotter, Chesapeake’s corporate development director.

The company’s emergency response teams are on site, along with other well control specialists. “Chesapeake's priorities are to contain the incident and protect the health and safety of the public, the environment and employees and contractors,” McCotter stated in an email to The Times around 12:30 a.m. today.

Evacuations in the isolated area were not deemed necessary by first responders and law enforcement agencies. Air quality is being monitored.

Roads in the area also remain open.

“Currently, action is being taken to restore control of the well. The cause of the incident is under investigation and extent of the damage is still being assessed,” McCotter said.

The blowout of the Nabors Logan 27H-1 well is the second in as many months for Chesapeake. On May 8, the Nabors 10H-1 well in the Naborton community in southeast DeSoto Parish started spewing natural gas into the air and prompted the evacuations of 15 families for almost 48 hours. The incident happened as contractors were preparing the well for the final stages of completion.

Check this site later this morning and throughout the day for more updates on the situation.


Serial #239443 - NABORS LOGAN 27 H
04/27/2009 09 17317 WAITING ON COMPLETION

Earlene

Disclaimer: That is IF the times has the well name correct :-P

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sandstone on July 8, 2009 at 22:52

Thanks Buck and Earlene - another good reason to keep that grab-and-go bag handy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 9, 2009 at 3:27

Jay, there are only three Chesapeake wells in Sabine Parish. One on production, one not yet spudded and the one above that was "waiting on completion" in April. Looks like they were completing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on July 9, 2009 at 4:50

They were running coil tubing when it happened is what I have been told.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pelican on July 9, 2009 at 6:46

I drove by it yesterday and took the attached photo. Not sure why it looks like black smoke. Next to the well site entrance it is very loud and what smells like rotten eggs.
The photo was taken off Hwy 174 about a mile east of the site.

Attachments:

• ck 1 (2).jpg, 830 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 9, 2009 at 8:54

Pelkid, the gas in the southern portion of the Haynesville Shale has a higher sulfur content. That would be the likely source of the smell.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DaddyT on July 9, 2009 at 9:08

I've heard if it smells like "rotten eggs", Run Baby Run. Just what I have been told.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on July 9, 2009 at 10:02

This is one reason you don't want to be umi or working interest. The well will be brought under control, the UMi and WI will pay the bills. The RI only has to sit tight and hope it happens sooner than later.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on July 9, 2009 at 17:36

Wolf:

What would you consider to be an unreasonable act?

Perhaps more importantly, how would you (and how do the courts) define "unreasonable expense" for these purposes?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on July 10, 2009 at 3:05

"using cheap and substandard casing "

Ths is why the state requires all casing to be tested prior to use. information on these tests is even on SONRIS lite.

Permalink Reply by E & E on July 10, 2009 at 3:32

How bout a well that was producing having NO casing other than surface?? The state even signed off on this wonderfully tested casing. Well ran this way for almost a year!!! Was only corrected when they figured out why the numbers weren't like they should be and getting wet gas. Would this count as a unreasonable act?
Earlene

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on July 10, 2009 at 3:57

Wolf:

Sometimes having a drunk operator is a good thing. For instance, having an operator that has been supplied beer all afternoon makes for the best boiled crawfish. And sometimes dropping random things down the hole is called 'innovation'. I seem to remember someone deciding to use superballs as a proppant on a well in the Rockies some time back.

Seriously, though, what I am getting at is whether such a standard would end up being more of a comparative of the costs and actions of and amongst the various operators, or a more subjective "here it's this, there it's that" type of muddle. For instance, will an operator which has shown great proficiency at operating in the HS be given a 'pass' by the system for a costly 'error' (as an unforeseen 'oops') versus an operator who has a track record of uneven performance and/or higher well costs?

And I think you have better research tools at your disposal to sift through the jurisprudence.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page